Today was the longest day of the Convention, and not only with respect to the schedule. We were in session (with lunch and supper breaks) from 8:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. That would certainly have been long enough, even if everything had been pleasant. But, in contrast to the more friendly atmosphere that seemed to prevail yesterday, there were various indications of a mean-spiritedness today. As it is, I have been wrestling with some real anger in my heart, for which I must repent. I am grateful for the handful of brothers who, at various points in the day, spoke encouraging and uplifting words of grace and peace to me, perhaps without even realizing how needed their fraternal comments were at the time. The Lord surely blesses me greatly, and I pray that His divine mercy, His patience and steadfast love, will enable me to turn the other cheek rather than clenching my fists.
I'm sorry that I do not have the heart or the spirit to go into lengthy details about the business of the day. There is much that could and should be said about many of the things that happened, most of them not good. Yet, I am weary in both mind and body, and not of the right disposition to consider things as dispassionately as I would prefer. For the sake of keeping up with the events of this week, I intend only to identify and discuss a few of the highlights (or low points, as the case may be).
The discussion and debate has been far more productive, in my opinion, than it was in 2004. The margins of the various votes have varied far more widely, apparently fluctuating in response to the comments made from the microphones on the floor of the Convention. That is precisely as it should be. Which makes it all the more frustrating that so many of the discussions have been cut dramatically short by the calling of the question. Of course, the assembly is then given the option of voting to proceed with debate, but without the time and opportunity for persuasive arguments, one way or the other, many of the delegates are caught up in the push to move on. There is such an artificial, manufactured sense of "urgency" about getting through the business of the Convention, that we end up not taking the time to do the real hard work that we ought to be doing, namely, the thoughtful and serious discussion, debate, even argument, and careful consideration of each motion that is set before us. There were a number of striking examples, in which debate was haulted while numerous people were left waiting at the microphones to speak.
In the case of Res. 8-02A, which may have been the most volatile resolution of the Convention, discussion and debate were terminated, remarkably, after only two or three speakers! That was one of the many times when I was at the microphone myself, waiting to speak, but not able to do so. This Resolution dealt with the matter of how disputes between members of Synod are to be handled. It set up a false set of options, between civil lawsuits on the one hand, and the Synod's flawed and faulty dispute resolution process on the other hand. The dispute resolution process is the one introduced by the vile 2004 Res. 8-01A, which I have spent much time and energy working to refute according to the proper protocols of the Church over the past several years. An overture that I drafted two years ago for our Indiana District Convention, stemming from the consensus of the joint South Bend and LaPorte Circuits Pastors' Conference after a year of fruitful discussion, which passed by a large majority at last year's District Convention, was not even given the courtesy of any attention by the pertinent floor committee of this Synodical Convention. Our Indiana District was not the only one calling for the same or similar action on the 2004 Res. 8-01A, either; there were half a dozen or more entire districts that memorialized the Synod in Convention to rescind or greatly revise that resolution of the previous Convention. But such is the power of the floor committees in general, and evidently the hubris of Floor Committee 8 in particular, that all of those districts have simply been ignored. The opportunity that I might have had to raise at least some of the concerns relative to the dispute resolution process was taken from me by the ceasing of debate after only two or three speakers. At that point, I was one of several dozen delegates waiting at the microphones to address the assembly.
The drumbeat of the administration, and the apparent mindset of the reigning majority at this Convention, is that power and authority ought to be more and more centralized in the hands of a relatively small number of "respected leaders," whether elected or appointed. Thus, by way of one shocking example, one of the vice presidents of the Synod gave a speech in which he scolded the delegates for making floor nominations in the normal course of the election process! What was the point in having a "nominations committee," he asked, if we were going to allow the making of nominations from the floor? He actually went so far as to say that those people, who had been passed over by the nominations committee, were "clearly not the best." Wow! And this prejudice was reinforced by the Chair of the Convention, who made a point of distinguishing the floor nominees from those that were placed on the ballot by the nominations committee.
Again, there appears to be a concerted push toward a far more hierarchical structure and a centralization of power. Which is my number one reason for opposing the Resolution 8-07A, now pending (because the day mercifully came to an end in the midst of discussion), which calls for a special Convention of the Synod in 2009. The express purpose of that special Convention is a complete restructuring of the Synod's entire polity and governance. Not simply amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws, but a completely new structure altogether, built from the ground up. When someone proposed an amendment to this motion, which would have prohibited any changes in the doctrinal standard of the Synod, the spokesman of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synodical Structure and Governance, hemmed and hawed about how they didn't want to change the content of the doctrinal standard, but they did want the freedom to "tweak" and refocus that article of the Constitution, and in the process to establish some new emphases. That was a chilling remark, in my opinion, and one that ought to put everyone on guard.
Judging from the policy-based governance that has come to dominate the boards, commissions, and districts of the Synod over the past decade, it is my estimination that the Blue Ribbon Task Force is hoping to use that same model for the governance of the entire Synod. What that would amount to, in short, is that the executive officers of the Synod would be free and clear to do whatever they were not explicitly forbidden from doing. That's bad business, in my opinion, but it is a far worse way of going about things as a fellowship of Christ's holy Church on earth. Whether there is a special Convention or not, I hope and pray most earnestly that it will not come to that.
There were other actions of note. One of them assigned the CTCR to prepare a study on so-called "serial prayer," in which Christians offer prayer in succession with people of other religions. As one brother delegate expressed, it is hard to believe that such shenanigans are seriously entertained. I stand by the position I have taken on this question since the Yankee Stadium debacle of September 2001: The Holy Triune God does not stand in line for His turn at the podium! He is a jealous God, who does not suffer His bride to be ravaged, nor His children to be kidnapped. We ought to fear Him alone, who can destroy both soul and body in hell; even as we all the more love and trust in Him, who lavishes grace and every blessing upon us solely in the Name and for the sake of our dear Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
The schitzophrenic attitudes of the Synod toward "worship" were also evident in a series of resolutions from Floor Committee 2, all of them adopted. One called for the study of worship through model theological conferences, in order to arrive at greater clarity and unity in this area. In the very next resolution, the Convention called upon the Commission on Worship to provides resources for those who are using "contemporary" (sic) worship forms, despite the fact that such forms are at the very center of the controversy to be addressed by theological study. The chairman of the floor committee expressed his opinion that, while there is a great deal of diversity among us in practice, there is no great diversity in our theology of "worship." I agree with the delegate who pointed out that such an opinion, in itself, expresses a very different theology of "worship" than many of us hold and confess. While there is certainly much freedom in externals when it comes to worship, one cannot so easily separate theology and practice, and, in any case, the differences in practice within the LCMS stem from real theological differences.
Yet, we overwhelmingly resolved to commend the Commission on Worship, and others, for the Lutheran Service Book, which has been so well received across the Synod. It was in the discussion of that resolution that I finally had an opportunity to speak at the microphone! Hooray! I managed to be there in time to avoid having the question called before I was able to speak. I was glad for the chance to publicly express my thanks to the Reverend Dr. Paul Grime, who so capably and faithfully served as the project director for the Lutheran Service Book. As I indicated in my little speech, his pastoral care of the project, and of those many people such as myself who worked on the project, is deeply appreciated. My prayers go with Paul and his family, as he now leaves St. Louis for his new position as the dean of the chapel at the Seminary in Fort Wayne. Godspeed his family's move and his new vocation.
17 July 2007
Observations on the Second Day of the Convention
Well, today was a rather interesting day, especially with respect to the mood of the Convention. Maybe everyone had a peaceful sleep last night and so began the new day in good spirits, or something. I know that, for my part, the chance to share supper and conversation with my dear friend and colleague, Pastor Bender, was a balm to my heavy heart and a huge boost to my sagging spirit. In any event, there was relatively little rancor today, and more of what might be called good-will and gentlemanly courtesy. Along those same lines, I will say that the overall tenner of this Convention seems less contentious to me than what I experienced in St. Louis three years ago. Would it be fair to suggest that the minority are genuinely evangelical and the majority can relax and afford to be nice?
I’ve been surprised by the number of voting delegates from three years ago who are here as voting delegates again at this Convention. Obviously, I am one of those, but I’m certainly not alone. I don’t have any sort of statistic on that, so maybe it is simply a matter of my own perception. Nevertheless, there seem to be far more of the same pastoral delegates than I had expected. I don’t know what to make of that, but it is simply an observation.
A somewhat similar observation is the number of people who have made multiple trips to speak at the microphones. That has seemed unusual to me. I’m not casting aspersions, one way or the other; many of those who have spoken repeatedly are dear friends and colleagues of mine, and, hey, I’m glad they’re up there speaking faithfully and forthrightly. I’ve not gotten up to speak yet, myself, although I did come close on several occasions today. There are things coming up that I am more interested in, and I have not wanted to "wear out my welcome" at the microphones. The fact that others have been speaking frequently has given me pause for thought, as to whether it matters how often one addresses the Convention. Well, I mainly pray that when I do have something to say, I will have the presence of mind, the courage and the wherewithal, to speak calmly, candidly, clearly and with charity of heart.
There were two unfortunate resolutions passed today, in my opinion. One of them (5-04) increased the number of regents on each of the Concordia University boards by allowing up to four additional voting lay members (for as many as eight altogether) appointed by the respective board itself. This in comparison to the four voting members (one ordained, one commissioned, and two lay) elected by the Synod in Convention, and another four (of the same status) elected by the geographical district in which the university is located. The president of the district in which the university is located is also a voting member of its board, by virtue of his office. Because of difficulties with the electronic voting boxes at the point when this resolution was called, it was adopted by a standing vote. Many of us who voted against the resolution asked to have our negative votes recorded by name in the official minutes of the Convention. A corresponding resolution pertaining to the two seminaries will come before us at some point in the next day or two, and it seems likely that it will also be adopted.
Another resolution (8-01) was adopted, ostensibly settling the conflict of the past many years between the Synod’s Board of Directors and its Commission on Constitutional Matters. As one member of the Board commented in the course of debate, the bylaw amendments introduced by this resolution are basically a compromise position, which deals with the problem for now, but fails to address the heart of the controversy. The gist of it is that, in those cases where the governing documents of the Synod are (or appear to be) in conflict with the laws of the state, "such issues shall be resolved in accord with the provisions in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod." No doubt the intentions are good, but the appearance is hereby given that Synod may choose to defy the civil law, not on the basis of the Word of God (for indeed we must obey God rather than man), but in adiaphora (i.e. matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden by the Word of God), on the basis of synodical polity. I agree with others that we really ought not to be in such a position, in which we presume to interpret the law of the land. Better simply to submit to the governing authorities, as Scripture does command us, to obey the law, excepting only those cases in which the government would require us to disobey the Lord our God.
Another resolution that has caused much concern, "To Establish Specific Ministry Pastor Program" (5-01A), was introduced today, but has not yet been voted on. There are lots of mixed feelings about this among my own circle of friends and like-minded colleagues. It proposes to establish a program for the training of pastors, under the auspice of the seminaries, by way of mentors, distance education, and a significantly reduced number of courses. The men so trained in this program would be ordained to the Office of the Ministry, but restricted in their area of service to a particular location or circumstance. The goal is to undo the mischief introduced almost twenty years ago with the licensing of non-ordained "deacons" for preaching and the administration of the Sacraments, in contradiction of the Augsburg Confession. This proposal aims to regularize the training of such men, for actual certification, call and ordination to the pastoral office, even though differences in education would require the restriction of their "jurisdiction," to use the historic language mentioned by Dr. Larry Rast in his introductory remarks. I have been leery of this resolution, along with many others, but I do see the potential benefit in adopting it. I believe it could have a very good and salutary result, notwithstanding the risk of abuse that also goes along with it. In particular, though, I would very much like to have some assurance that the many "lay-ministry" training programs currently operated on the district level would be phased out or subsumed under the specific ministry pastor program (and thus under the seminaries). We’ll see.
Other than these several matters, the day was straightforward, conciliatory and downright peaceful. During floor nominations for the Board of Directors yesterday, a motion was made and adopted to identify whether any potential nominee had been a plaintiff in the lawsuit of this past triennium. This "scarlet letter" became increasingly irksome and flew in the face of all the talk about fraternal love, reconciliation, forgiveness, and a desire for peace and unity. The different spirit that seemed to prevail today was most obvious when one of those delegates who had voted in favor of identifying the plaintiffs rose to move the reconsideration of that motion. It was put to the vote again and defeated this time, an action that was met by a round of applause from the assembly. That was an exemplary moment.
Along with the removal of the lawsuit "scarlet letter," there was also a dramatic shift in the attitude of the Convention toward floor nominations in general. I don’t believe that any such nominations were accepted yesterday. Today, in striking contrast, there were only two floor nominations that were not accepted, out of dozens that were made over the course of an hour. The slate of candidates on the "big ballot" tomorrow should be impressively huge after that!
There were standing ovations given for the two resolutions brought forward by Floor Committee 6, dealing with World Relief and Human Care. Both were adopted with impressively high majorities. One issues a strong word of opposition to embryonic stem cell research. The other extends thanks to God, and to the many entities and individuals of the LCMS, for the relief that has been given in the wake of several devastating natural disasters in the past few years. I suspect that the spirit in which these particular resolutions were set forth, received and embraced, contributed tremendously to the softening of the tone of the Convention on this second day. It does appear to be the case that our Synod enjoys its greatest unanimity in the area of human care. Let us praise God for that, and for all that goes with it, even as we continue to strive for greater unanimity in the doctrine and practice of the faith.
Oh, yes, speaking of such unity and concord in doctrine and practice, it should also be noted that the LCMS entered into pulpit and altar fellowship with the Association of American Lutheran Churches. This relatively small church body is constituted by former ALC congregations that declined to become a part of the ELCA when it was formed in the 1980s. Although there are some questions and concerns regarding the actual practice of some of these AALC congregations, their public confession appears to be quite solid and sound. The speech that was made by the Presiding Pastor of the AALC, following the adoption of church fellowship, was one of profound gratitude, both impassioned and encouraging. The AALC has already been sending its seminary students to Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, for some time now, and seems eager to benefit from our theological assistance and support.
I’m probably omitting matters of importance, but that is all the comes to mind this evening. In any event, I need to make a point of wrapping this up and putting myself to bed for a good night’s sleep. God grant that He will be merciful upon us, for Jesus’ sake, and guide the deliberations and actions of the Convention by His Word and Holy Spirit. Glory be to the Father and to the and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.
I’ve been surprised by the number of voting delegates from three years ago who are here as voting delegates again at this Convention. Obviously, I am one of those, but I’m certainly not alone. I don’t have any sort of statistic on that, so maybe it is simply a matter of my own perception. Nevertheless, there seem to be far more of the same pastoral delegates than I had expected. I don’t know what to make of that, but it is simply an observation.
A somewhat similar observation is the number of people who have made multiple trips to speak at the microphones. That has seemed unusual to me. I’m not casting aspersions, one way or the other; many of those who have spoken repeatedly are dear friends and colleagues of mine, and, hey, I’m glad they’re up there speaking faithfully and forthrightly. I’ve not gotten up to speak yet, myself, although I did come close on several occasions today. There are things coming up that I am more interested in, and I have not wanted to "wear out my welcome" at the microphones. The fact that others have been speaking frequently has given me pause for thought, as to whether it matters how often one addresses the Convention. Well, I mainly pray that when I do have something to say, I will have the presence of mind, the courage and the wherewithal, to speak calmly, candidly, clearly and with charity of heart.
There were two unfortunate resolutions passed today, in my opinion. One of them (5-04) increased the number of regents on each of the Concordia University boards by allowing up to four additional voting lay members (for as many as eight altogether) appointed by the respective board itself. This in comparison to the four voting members (one ordained, one commissioned, and two lay) elected by the Synod in Convention, and another four (of the same status) elected by the geographical district in which the university is located. The president of the district in which the university is located is also a voting member of its board, by virtue of his office. Because of difficulties with the electronic voting boxes at the point when this resolution was called, it was adopted by a standing vote. Many of us who voted against the resolution asked to have our negative votes recorded by name in the official minutes of the Convention. A corresponding resolution pertaining to the two seminaries will come before us at some point in the next day or two, and it seems likely that it will also be adopted.
Another resolution (8-01) was adopted, ostensibly settling the conflict of the past many years between the Synod’s Board of Directors and its Commission on Constitutional Matters. As one member of the Board commented in the course of debate, the bylaw amendments introduced by this resolution are basically a compromise position, which deals with the problem for now, but fails to address the heart of the controversy. The gist of it is that, in those cases where the governing documents of the Synod are (or appear to be) in conflict with the laws of the state, "such issues shall be resolved in accord with the provisions in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod." No doubt the intentions are good, but the appearance is hereby given that Synod may choose to defy the civil law, not on the basis of the Word of God (for indeed we must obey God rather than man), but in adiaphora (i.e. matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden by the Word of God), on the basis of synodical polity. I agree with others that we really ought not to be in such a position, in which we presume to interpret the law of the land. Better simply to submit to the governing authorities, as Scripture does command us, to obey the law, excepting only those cases in which the government would require us to disobey the Lord our God.
Another resolution that has caused much concern, "To Establish Specific Ministry Pastor Program" (5-01A), was introduced today, but has not yet been voted on. There are lots of mixed feelings about this among my own circle of friends and like-minded colleagues. It proposes to establish a program for the training of pastors, under the auspice of the seminaries, by way of mentors, distance education, and a significantly reduced number of courses. The men so trained in this program would be ordained to the Office of the Ministry, but restricted in their area of service to a particular location or circumstance. The goal is to undo the mischief introduced almost twenty years ago with the licensing of non-ordained "deacons" for preaching and the administration of the Sacraments, in contradiction of the Augsburg Confession. This proposal aims to regularize the training of such men, for actual certification, call and ordination to the pastoral office, even though differences in education would require the restriction of their "jurisdiction," to use the historic language mentioned by Dr. Larry Rast in his introductory remarks. I have been leery of this resolution, along with many others, but I do see the potential benefit in adopting it. I believe it could have a very good and salutary result, notwithstanding the risk of abuse that also goes along with it. In particular, though, I would very much like to have some assurance that the many "lay-ministry" training programs currently operated on the district level would be phased out or subsumed under the specific ministry pastor program (and thus under the seminaries). We’ll see.
Other than these several matters, the day was straightforward, conciliatory and downright peaceful. During floor nominations for the Board of Directors yesterday, a motion was made and adopted to identify whether any potential nominee had been a plaintiff in the lawsuit of this past triennium. This "scarlet letter" became increasingly irksome and flew in the face of all the talk about fraternal love, reconciliation, forgiveness, and a desire for peace and unity. The different spirit that seemed to prevail today was most obvious when one of those delegates who had voted in favor of identifying the plaintiffs rose to move the reconsideration of that motion. It was put to the vote again and defeated this time, an action that was met by a round of applause from the assembly. That was an exemplary moment.
Along with the removal of the lawsuit "scarlet letter," there was also a dramatic shift in the attitude of the Convention toward floor nominations in general. I don’t believe that any such nominations were accepted yesterday. Today, in striking contrast, there were only two floor nominations that were not accepted, out of dozens that were made over the course of an hour. The slate of candidates on the "big ballot" tomorrow should be impressively huge after that!
There were standing ovations given for the two resolutions brought forward by Floor Committee 6, dealing with World Relief and Human Care. Both were adopted with impressively high majorities. One issues a strong word of opposition to embryonic stem cell research. The other extends thanks to God, and to the many entities and individuals of the LCMS, for the relief that has been given in the wake of several devastating natural disasters in the past few years. I suspect that the spirit in which these particular resolutions were set forth, received and embraced, contributed tremendously to the softening of the tone of the Convention on this second day. It does appear to be the case that our Synod enjoys its greatest unanimity in the area of human care. Let us praise God for that, and for all that goes with it, even as we continue to strive for greater unanimity in the doctrine and practice of the faith.
Oh, yes, speaking of such unity and concord in doctrine and practice, it should also be noted that the LCMS entered into pulpit and altar fellowship with the Association of American Lutheran Churches. This relatively small church body is constituted by former ALC congregations that declined to become a part of the ELCA when it was formed in the 1980s. Although there are some questions and concerns regarding the actual practice of some of these AALC congregations, their public confession appears to be quite solid and sound. The speech that was made by the Presiding Pastor of the AALC, following the adoption of church fellowship, was one of profound gratitude, both impassioned and encouraging. The AALC has already been sending its seminary students to Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, for some time now, and seems eager to benefit from our theological assistance and support.
I’m probably omitting matters of importance, but that is all the comes to mind this evening. In any event, I need to make a point of wrapping this up and putting myself to bed for a good night’s sleep. God grant that He will be merciful upon us, for Jesus’ sake, and guide the deliberations and actions of the Convention by His Word and Holy Spirit. Glory be to the Father and to the and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.
16 July 2007
The President Elect of the LCMS
President Kieschnick was easily re-elected for a third term on the first ballot. Others will analyze the number of votes and be able to comment on that from a thousand different angles, but the bottom line is that the incumbent President received several dozen more votes than the needed majority, and 130 more votes than the Reverend Chaplain Dr. John C. Wohlrabe, Jr. It was not the outcome that I was hoping for, but so be it. I have disagreed with President Kieschnick on numerous points in the past, and will no doubt continue to do so. Nevertheless, I will honor the office to which he has been elected, and I will pray for him in that office, that the Lord would continue to govern and protect His holy Church also through this man. I don't much like it, really, from my limited human perspective, but I don't know what else to do. I'm sorry that I don't have the clarity and conviction that many of my colleagues seem to have about this.
Actually, I've been thinking that we really shouldn't be voting on this office of synodical president anyway, at least not every triennium. Voting to elect someone to the office is fine, I suppose, but having a new election every three years does not seem right to me. If we are going to treat the office as a Divine Call, in which an ordained pastor serves full-time, then a periodic new election to the office strikes me as an abuse of the Call. Perhaps, if there wasn't this regular standing for election, the President of the Synod would more easily conduct his office in the conscientious fear of the Lord. I'm not offering that as an accusation, but as an observation.
In President Kieschnick's acceptance speech, following his re-election, he appeared to speak from the heart concerning his faith and his vocations, his family and life. I am not inclined to judge anyone's motivations or intentions, and I frankly have no reason to doubt or question the sincerity of the President's words. Most of what he had to say, I appreciated and would readily agree with. I heard him express, not only his faith and confidence in Christ, but also a humble recognition of his own sin, and a desire for our prayers on his behalf, our forgiveness where he has failed, and our patience with him as a fellow Christian man of frail flesh and blood. These are good words, and right words, and I daresay a more forthright confession of the faith than I have heard, by and large, in the proceedings of the Convention overall. I trust the Lord to work through His means of grace, His Word and Spirit, unto continued repentance and faith in the President's heart and life. That is indeed my prayer, not only for him, but for myself and others, my family and friends and congregation. It is still the case that we dare not trust in princes, who are but mortal; earthborn they are, and soon decay. Our trust is in the Name of the Lord.
Prior to the election, President Kieschnick, in the final portion of his report to the Synod, identified a number of challenges and controversies within the LCMS. He urged that our doctrinal solidarity is far greater than our differences; which, in comparison to much of "Christendom," is probably quite true. Christ be praised for that. I'm not clear on whether the President would regard our differences as matters of doctrine or practice, and I'm not at all sure it is so simple to distinguish between such things in the cut and thrust of life. Our doctrine must be practiced, if it is any true doctrine at all; and our practice not only confesses our doctrine, but assuredly catechizes us (rightly or wrongly) and thereby serves to shape our doctrine over time. The President identified four key areas or points of disagreement, however he might categorize them. They are (a.) the practice of "close (sic) Communion," (b.) the big questions of Church and Ministry, including the relationship of the pastoral office to the "priesthood of all believers," (c.) the service of women in the Church, and (d.) "traditional" vs. "contemporary" worship. I agree with him that these are significant areas of controversy. In my opinion, they all touch upon the heart and center of both doctrine and practice, of both faith and life, namely, the work of Christ.
President Kieschnick took a firm stand on the whole question and debate of dispute resolution. The process established by the Synod is to be the exclusive and final protocol for dealing with such matters. That is problematic for a host of reasons, and I continue to pray that the process now in place (as adopted by Res. 8-01a of the 2004 Convention) can be dealt with in a godly way. I'm not holding my breath, but I wait upon the Lord, and I implore His mercy upon us. I regret that the President seems to pose a choice between the Synod's dispute resolution process and civil lawsuits. Is there no middle ground? This whole thing has become so politicized, and so convoluted, I am tempted to despair of any substantive discussion and debate.
A similar dilemma emerged in the President's remarks on inter-Christian relations. He offered what I regard as a false dichotomy between those who would have no contact whatsoever with heterodox bodies, and those who would engage in selective associations with such bodies. This presents an extreme position on one side, over against a moderate stance on the other. I guess that is not such a new rhetorical approach, but it is not helpful or constructive.
What struck me in particular, in the President's report, was a comment that we must change what needs to be changed, and retain what needs to be retained. In hearing him say that, I could not help but think of the opening remarks of Dolores Umbridge at the beginning of the new schoolyear at Hogwarts in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Having just seen the movie based upon that book, I'm almost certain that she made exactly the same comment. It did not bode well for the students of Hogwarts in the ensuing months, and I shuddered a bit when I heard such words coming from the mouth of our synodical president, now newly re-elected for another term of office. So I shall pray for the President of our Synod, and for the pastors and congregations that constitute our Synod, that the Lord would bode us well. Above all, I pray that He would call me daily to repentance, and keep me steadfast in His Word and faith until I die. For such is His good and gracious will, fulfilled in Christ Jesus for us all.
Actually, I've been thinking that we really shouldn't be voting on this office of synodical president anyway, at least not every triennium. Voting to elect someone to the office is fine, I suppose, but having a new election every three years does not seem right to me. If we are going to treat the office as a Divine Call, in which an ordained pastor serves full-time, then a periodic new election to the office strikes me as an abuse of the Call. Perhaps, if there wasn't this regular standing for election, the President of the Synod would more easily conduct his office in the conscientious fear of the Lord. I'm not offering that as an accusation, but as an observation.
In President Kieschnick's acceptance speech, following his re-election, he appeared to speak from the heart concerning his faith and his vocations, his family and life. I am not inclined to judge anyone's motivations or intentions, and I frankly have no reason to doubt or question the sincerity of the President's words. Most of what he had to say, I appreciated and would readily agree with. I heard him express, not only his faith and confidence in Christ, but also a humble recognition of his own sin, and a desire for our prayers on his behalf, our forgiveness where he has failed, and our patience with him as a fellow Christian man of frail flesh and blood. These are good words, and right words, and I daresay a more forthright confession of the faith than I have heard, by and large, in the proceedings of the Convention overall. I trust the Lord to work through His means of grace, His Word and Spirit, unto continued repentance and faith in the President's heart and life. That is indeed my prayer, not only for him, but for myself and others, my family and friends and congregation. It is still the case that we dare not trust in princes, who are but mortal; earthborn they are, and soon decay. Our trust is in the Name of the Lord.
Prior to the election, President Kieschnick, in the final portion of his report to the Synod, identified a number of challenges and controversies within the LCMS. He urged that our doctrinal solidarity is far greater than our differences; which, in comparison to much of "Christendom," is probably quite true. Christ be praised for that. I'm not clear on whether the President would regard our differences as matters of doctrine or practice, and I'm not at all sure it is so simple to distinguish between such things in the cut and thrust of life. Our doctrine must be practiced, if it is any true doctrine at all; and our practice not only confesses our doctrine, but assuredly catechizes us (rightly or wrongly) and thereby serves to shape our doctrine over time. The President identified four key areas or points of disagreement, however he might categorize them. They are (a.) the practice of "close (sic) Communion," (b.) the big questions of Church and Ministry, including the relationship of the pastoral office to the "priesthood of all believers," (c.) the service of women in the Church, and (d.) "traditional" vs. "contemporary" worship. I agree with him that these are significant areas of controversy. In my opinion, they all touch upon the heart and center of both doctrine and practice, of both faith and life, namely, the work of Christ.
President Kieschnick took a firm stand on the whole question and debate of dispute resolution. The process established by the Synod is to be the exclusive and final protocol for dealing with such matters. That is problematic for a host of reasons, and I continue to pray that the process now in place (as adopted by Res. 8-01a of the 2004 Convention) can be dealt with in a godly way. I'm not holding my breath, but I wait upon the Lord, and I implore His mercy upon us. I regret that the President seems to pose a choice between the Synod's dispute resolution process and civil lawsuits. Is there no middle ground? This whole thing has become so politicized, and so convoluted, I am tempted to despair of any substantive discussion and debate.
A similar dilemma emerged in the President's remarks on inter-Christian relations. He offered what I regard as a false dichotomy between those who would have no contact whatsoever with heterodox bodies, and those who would engage in selective associations with such bodies. This presents an extreme position on one side, over against a moderate stance on the other. I guess that is not such a new rhetorical approach, but it is not helpful or constructive.
What struck me in particular, in the President's report, was a comment that we must change what needs to be changed, and retain what needs to be retained. In hearing him say that, I could not help but think of the opening remarks of Dolores Umbridge at the beginning of the new schoolyear at Hogwarts in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Having just seen the movie based upon that book, I'm almost certain that she made exactly the same comment. It did not bode well for the students of Hogwarts in the ensuing months, and I shuddered a bit when I heard such words coming from the mouth of our synodical president, now newly re-elected for another term of office. So I shall pray for the President of our Synod, and for the pastors and congregations that constitute our Synod, that the Lord would bode us well. Above all, I pray that He would call me daily to repentance, and keep me steadfast in His Word and faith until I die. For such is His good and gracious will, fulfilled in Christ Jesus for us all.
15 July 2007
Thinking Blogger
Thanks to Jane at Homeschool Notebook for nominating my little blog here for a "thinking blogger" award. I'm pleased if my own thinking out loud, which is so helpful to me in sorting things out and processing my thoughts, is also of some benefit to others. It is certainly the case that I enjoy the contributions that Jane and many other bloggers make. Such internet dialogue surely does not take the place of personal conversation, but it offers another means of exploring topics and pooling our collective wisdom, in a way that I find to be worthy of my time.
I've followed Jane's helpful instructions for putting the "thinking blogger" button here, and I gather that I am also supposed to "nominate" others for the same. Since Jane is the one who nominated me, and she already nominated Susan's Pendelum at the same time, it would be redundant of me to name either of them. I'm also not sure how to embed links to anyone else's blog within a post, so the best I can do is to refer people to my list of blogs "on the other hand," which includes all of the spots that I regularly check. As far as those that most often make me think, I'd have to include the following (by no means an exhaustive list):
Karin's Chickens: though she has an unfair advantage in being a close friend of my family. Nevertheless, her blog posts do make me think, and as often as not make me laugh, which is sometimes as good or better.
The Crafty Wright's: offers very thoughtful comments, and thought-provoking questions.
Pastor Petersen's "Cyberstones," on the Redeemer Home Page, is excellent, and regularly a great catalyst of worthwhile discussions.
Rev. Weedon's Blog: is always worth reading; I love his daily quotations from the fathers.
Burr in the Burgh: a recent discovery of mine, by my good friend and colleague, Rev. Scott Stiegemeyer. I appreciate his insights and his reflections on popular culture.
Esgetology: another source of theologically sound commentary on various topics of interest.
Exercise in Humility: new posts are not as frequent as on some other blogs, but I always like to read what my dear friend Emily has to say.
Mostly Harmless: likewise, the number of posts is relatively small, but they tend to be clever, thoughtful and worthwhile.
So, I guess those are the "thinking blogs" that I would be inclined to put toward the top of my list. But, again, all of those listed "on the other hand" (the list on the left here) are blogs that I check daily. Those individuals can refer to Jane's Homeschool Notebook for how to go about putting the "thinking blog" button on their pages, if they like.
I've followed Jane's helpful instructions for putting the "thinking blogger" button here, and I gather that I am also supposed to "nominate" others for the same. Since Jane is the one who nominated me, and she already nominated Susan's Pendelum at the same time, it would be redundant of me to name either of them. I'm also not sure how to embed links to anyone else's blog within a post, so the best I can do is to refer people to my list of blogs "on the other hand," which includes all of the spots that I regularly check. As far as those that most often make me think, I'd have to include the following (by no means an exhaustive list):
Karin's Chickens: though she has an unfair advantage in being a close friend of my family. Nevertheless, her blog posts do make me think, and as often as not make me laugh, which is sometimes as good or better.
The Crafty Wright's: offers very thoughtful comments, and thought-provoking questions.
Pastor Petersen's "Cyberstones," on the Redeemer Home Page, is excellent, and regularly a great catalyst of worthwhile discussions.
Rev. Weedon's Blog: is always worth reading; I love his daily quotations from the fathers.
Burr in the Burgh: a recent discovery of mine, by my good friend and colleague, Rev. Scott Stiegemeyer. I appreciate his insights and his reflections on popular culture.
Esgetology: another source of theologically sound commentary on various topics of interest.
Exercise in Humility: new posts are not as frequent as on some other blogs, but I always like to read what my dear friend Emily has to say.
Mostly Harmless: likewise, the number of posts is relatively small, but they tend to be clever, thoughtful and worthwhile.
So, I guess those are the "thinking blogs" that I would be inclined to put toward the top of my list. But, again, all of those listed "on the other hand" (the list on the left here) are blogs that I check daily. Those individuals can refer to Jane's Homeschool Notebook for how to go about putting the "thinking blog" button on their pages, if they like.
In Brief: Convention Underway
It's lunchtime on the first day of the Convention, so I have a brief opportunity to comment on what has happened so far. In pre-Convention activities yesterday, I did make my effort to address Res. 8-01A of the previous LCMS Convention (2004). My own Emmaus congregation, our South Bend Circuit, and our Indiana District, as well as other Districts and various entities of the Synod, memorialized this Convention to rescind that resolution and its consequent by-law changes. The floor committees had open hearings yesterday morning, and I spoke to the one responsible for the structure and governance of the Synod. That committee has put forward two resolutions that address a few of the concerns involved in 2004 Res. 8-01A, but it has for all intents and purposes ignored the overtures from my constituencies and numerous others.
Not surprisingly, my comments and appeals made no difference, and nothing new has come to us from Floor Committee 8. It is rather intent on proposing a special Convention of the Synod in 2009 (a year prior to the next regular Convention), for the purpose of putting forward a complete restructuring of our synodical polity and governance. I would suggest that the current LCMS by-laws and so forth do need to be addressed, especially in view of the changes that were made in 2004! But I am very leery of what might be proposed at a special Convention. I fear that it will be an attempt to adopt an even more pronounced hierarchical structure, not of the ecclesiastical sort, but of a bureaucratic nature. I have no desire to become cynical and pessimistic, and I pray that my fears will be allayed, but we shall have to see what transpires. It is surprising that such an expensive undertaking as a special Convention would be seriously considered, but it appears to be a basket into which a lot of eggs are being deposited.
The opening "worship" service was held last night, whereas this morning's (Sunday) session opened with a modified version of the new LSB Service of Prayer and Preaching. I am pleased that the opening service, yesterday, also followed an order of service from the LSB, namely, Divine Service Setting Four. I would have preferred Setting Three, or even Setting One or Two, but at least an officially agreed-upon order of service was used. The Propers appointed for this day (from Seriec C of the three-year lectionary) were read and prayed last night. The sermon, however, by the President of the Synod, took as its launching point a free-text, i.e., 1 John 4:9-11. The preaching loosely followed a basic Law-Gospel structure, for the most part, though the Law was not very pointed and the Gospel not very specific. The text was not really exposited, but provided some of the key themes and phrases that were woven throughout the sermon. There were cute and humorous anecdotal remarks to begin with, and three or four emotional stories of personal witness opportunities that the President has recently had. It is difficult for this sort of preaching to do the work of putting the sinner to death with the Law and raising him to life with the Gospel. I will say that the atonement of the Cross was articulated clearly midway through the sermon, and there is little doubt of President Kieschnick's personal faith in that saving death of our Lord Jesus Christ. There were also references to the means of grace as the channels of the Gospel, by which Christ delivers the goods to us in the here and now. Unfortunately, these few nuggets of clarity were not the crescendo of the sermon, but a bridge to more stories and to a drumbeat of personal responsibility that all of us have to speak the Gospel to others.
I know that I ought to speak the Gospel to others more faithfully and frequently than I manage to do. Thus, when I am admonished to do so, I am accused and convicted and brought to contrition. This is the work of the Law, and there is a necessary place for it in the preaching of the Word of God. But please don't leave me in my sin! Don't simply admonish me to try harder and do better. I cannot save myself, and if I thought I could manage it, and tried, it would be a poor Gospel indeed that I would endeavor to share with others.
This seems to be the trend, already, and the tone that is set for this Convention. The Ten Commandments, as the summary of God's Law, are little to be heard; everything is subsumed under the so-called "Great Commission." This all-encompassing Law is set forth, not unto repentance and faith in the Gospel, but as an effort to motivate and drive everyone to get off their butts and do something. The resolutions we are being given to consider are largely of this legalistic, Law-driven sort. Apparently, we're supposed to fix everything by forcing everyone to be nice, and above all to evangelize. Why can we not simply focus on Jesus and the preaching of His Gospel, and allow those dear children of His who are freely and fully forgiven by Him to live by faith in that saving Word and work of His, which will, by His grace and Spirit, animate their lives of love? Or is this too simplistic or naive?
I was especially discouraged by the hymnody that we were given to sing last night. All but one of the hymns, really, were of the "sanctification" and "new obedience" variety. There is a place for such hymns, but they have to be used sparingly, with discretion, and not allowed to predominate. It reminds me of Luther's evaluation of the historic Epistles for the Sundays after Holy Trinity, which tend to focus especially on good works and to avoid the great texts of faith in the Gospel. The selection of hymns last night (and this morning) was even more slanted toward the Law than those historic pericopes, and the overall effect was demoralizing. I told one colleague on our long walk back to the hotel, that it always sounds to me like the debaucherous teenage boy in the back seat with his date: "If you really loved me, you'd. . . ." So it goes: "If you really loved Jesus, then you'd be doing more to show it." This isn't the Gospel, and it doesn't strengthen my faith or increase my love.
With the glut of such hymnody, maybe it was appropriate that the Divine Service last night was identified as the opening "worship." There is a place for worship, that is, our sacrifice of thanksgiving for the gifts of God in Christ, which we offer in repentant faith in and with the receiving of His gifts. But why must we always have man's worship emphasized, as though it were the heart and center of things, instead of God's Liturgy, which truly is the foundation for anything and everything we might do? I suppose that is a losing battle, but I grow so weary of it.
The best thing about the Convention, by far, has been the opportunity to meet and visit with old friends and colleagues, many of whom I rarely ever see. The conversation and consulation of the brethren remains one of God's most precious gifts and treasured blessings in my life. I am grateful to hear and receive the Word of the Gospel from these men, even when it seems to be so lacking in much of what we are doing in the business for which we are supposed to be here.
Now I must return to that business and give attention to my delegate responsibilities. The next thing on the docket will be the election of the synodical president. The good and gracious will of God be done, for Jesus' sake. May He ever bless and keep us by His Cross.
Not surprisingly, my comments and appeals made no difference, and nothing new has come to us from Floor Committee 8. It is rather intent on proposing a special Convention of the Synod in 2009 (a year prior to the next regular Convention), for the purpose of putting forward a complete restructuring of our synodical polity and governance. I would suggest that the current LCMS by-laws and so forth do need to be addressed, especially in view of the changes that were made in 2004! But I am very leery of what might be proposed at a special Convention. I fear that it will be an attempt to adopt an even more pronounced hierarchical structure, not of the ecclesiastical sort, but of a bureaucratic nature. I have no desire to become cynical and pessimistic, and I pray that my fears will be allayed, but we shall have to see what transpires. It is surprising that such an expensive undertaking as a special Convention would be seriously considered, but it appears to be a basket into which a lot of eggs are being deposited.
The opening "worship" service was held last night, whereas this morning's (Sunday) session opened with a modified version of the new LSB Service of Prayer and Preaching. I am pleased that the opening service, yesterday, also followed an order of service from the LSB, namely, Divine Service Setting Four. I would have preferred Setting Three, or even Setting One or Two, but at least an officially agreed-upon order of service was used. The Propers appointed for this day (from Seriec C of the three-year lectionary) were read and prayed last night. The sermon, however, by the President of the Synod, took as its launching point a free-text, i.e., 1 John 4:9-11. The preaching loosely followed a basic Law-Gospel structure, for the most part, though the Law was not very pointed and the Gospel not very specific. The text was not really exposited, but provided some of the key themes and phrases that were woven throughout the sermon. There were cute and humorous anecdotal remarks to begin with, and three or four emotional stories of personal witness opportunities that the President has recently had. It is difficult for this sort of preaching to do the work of putting the sinner to death with the Law and raising him to life with the Gospel. I will say that the atonement of the Cross was articulated clearly midway through the sermon, and there is little doubt of President Kieschnick's personal faith in that saving death of our Lord Jesus Christ. There were also references to the means of grace as the channels of the Gospel, by which Christ delivers the goods to us in the here and now. Unfortunately, these few nuggets of clarity were not the crescendo of the sermon, but a bridge to more stories and to a drumbeat of personal responsibility that all of us have to speak the Gospel to others.
I know that I ought to speak the Gospel to others more faithfully and frequently than I manage to do. Thus, when I am admonished to do so, I am accused and convicted and brought to contrition. This is the work of the Law, and there is a necessary place for it in the preaching of the Word of God. But please don't leave me in my sin! Don't simply admonish me to try harder and do better. I cannot save myself, and if I thought I could manage it, and tried, it would be a poor Gospel indeed that I would endeavor to share with others.
This seems to be the trend, already, and the tone that is set for this Convention. The Ten Commandments, as the summary of God's Law, are little to be heard; everything is subsumed under the so-called "Great Commission." This all-encompassing Law is set forth, not unto repentance and faith in the Gospel, but as an effort to motivate and drive everyone to get off their butts and do something. The resolutions we are being given to consider are largely of this legalistic, Law-driven sort. Apparently, we're supposed to fix everything by forcing everyone to be nice, and above all to evangelize. Why can we not simply focus on Jesus and the preaching of His Gospel, and allow those dear children of His who are freely and fully forgiven by Him to live by faith in that saving Word and work of His, which will, by His grace and Spirit, animate their lives of love? Or is this too simplistic or naive?
I was especially discouraged by the hymnody that we were given to sing last night. All but one of the hymns, really, were of the "sanctification" and "new obedience" variety. There is a place for such hymns, but they have to be used sparingly, with discretion, and not allowed to predominate. It reminds me of Luther's evaluation of the historic Epistles for the Sundays after Holy Trinity, which tend to focus especially on good works and to avoid the great texts of faith in the Gospel. The selection of hymns last night (and this morning) was even more slanted toward the Law than those historic pericopes, and the overall effect was demoralizing. I told one colleague on our long walk back to the hotel, that it always sounds to me like the debaucherous teenage boy in the back seat with his date: "If you really loved me, you'd. . . ." So it goes: "If you really loved Jesus, then you'd be doing more to show it." This isn't the Gospel, and it doesn't strengthen my faith or increase my love.
With the glut of such hymnody, maybe it was appropriate that the Divine Service last night was identified as the opening "worship." There is a place for worship, that is, our sacrifice of thanksgiving for the gifts of God in Christ, which we offer in repentant faith in and with the receiving of His gifts. But why must we always have man's worship emphasized, as though it were the heart and center of things, instead of God's Liturgy, which truly is the foundation for anything and everything we might do? I suppose that is a losing battle, but I grow so weary of it.
The best thing about the Convention, by far, has been the opportunity to meet and visit with old friends and colleagues, many of whom I rarely ever see. The conversation and consulation of the brethren remains one of God's most precious gifts and treasured blessings in my life. I am grateful to hear and receive the Word of the Gospel from these men, even when it seems to be so lacking in much of what we are doing in the business for which we are supposed to be here.
Now I must return to that business and give attention to my delegate responsibilities. The next thing on the docket will be the election of the synodical president. The good and gracious will of God be done, for Jesus' sake. May He ever bless and keep us by His Cross.
The Ceremonies of a Lutheran Wedding
I agree with Piepkorn’s most basic summary rubrics concerning the conduct of any liturgical service: be reverent, and be courteous. Those rules simply express faith toward God and love toward others. Faith and love depend upon God speaking His Word and giving His gifts. Ceremonies serve and support both the speaking and hearing, the giving and receiving, of those divine means of grace. True reverence before God proceeds from a heart of repentant faith, as does sincere courtesy in deference to the neighbor. The rites of the Church provide a salutary common language to the heart of faith, with which to proclaim and confess the Word of God, to speak with a united voice. The ceremonies of the Church embody and enact the humility of repentance and the reverence of faith in the presence of the Lord, in receiving His gifts with thanksgiving. As the Lord deals with His people by external means that engage not only the heart and mind but also the body, so do His Christians respond with words of the mouth and bodily actions of faith and love. Outward reverence toward God disciplines and trains the Christian to love his neighbor also, not only in the heart, but with gracious words and loving works.
The particular ceremonies of a Lutheran wedding will serve and support all of these general purposes, while specifically confessing the divine significance of holy matrimony. Along with the basic rules of reverence and courtesy, it should be reiterated that everything is finally about Jesus. The Church finds her heart and center, her body and life in Him, who is her heavenly Bridegroom. Everything she does (in faith and love) proceeds from Him, returns to Him, confesses Him, points to Him, and resounds to the glory of His Name. That is no less true, but all the more so, in the case of a wedding celebration. Wherever the Holy Scriptures speak of marriage, from the beginning of the first creation to the consummation of all things in the New Creation, the Lord is speaking to us of Christ and His Church. The Christian bride and groom will surely desire that their wedding, as also their entire marriage, will confess and proclaim this christological significance, and that Christ Jesus Himself will be all and all. Whatever would contradict that, compete with that, distract or detract from that, finally has no place.
That is not to say that the celebration of holy matrimony has nothing to do with the particular bride and groom who find themselves before the Lord, in the presence of His people, to be united according to His Word and in His Holy Name. How absurd it would be to ignore the particularities of those two people who are there and thereby called by God to become a living and embodied icon of Christ and His Bride, the Church! It should not be understood as an either-or, but as a case of Christ manifesting Himself to and for this couple, and in them unto His entire Church and the world around them. Let us not shy away from the specificity of marriage, nor from the specificity of this man and this woman. Not only the propers and the preaching, but also the ceremonies of a Lutheran wedding will reflect all this.
It is certainly appropriate for the clergy and the "wedding party" to process into the church, and, as always, for the Cross of Christ to lead that procession. It is for the Cross that the congregation stands. In fact, it is strikingly significant for that visual icon of Christ the Crucified to lead the way, in view of the fact that He is the Husband who gives Himself up for His Church, in order to present her to Himself as a glorious Bride. For weddings, I have followed the Cross myself (if not carried the Cross), and have had the groom follow immediately after me; then the groomsmen escorting the bridesmaids, and finally the father of the bride escorting her to the front of the church. It does seem good to me for the groom to follow the cross and the presiding minister, as he shall walk in the way of Christ in love and service unto his wife. It also seems good to me for the father of the bride to bring her and present her to the man who will be her husband, as the Father once brought Eve to Adam and gave her to him. Such details are free, and the rubrics may call for something slightly different, but that is what has worked well for me in all of the weddings that I have done.
For the beginning of the liturgy, whether it be the Entrance Rite of the Divine Service or the Psalmody of the prayer offices, I have had the men stand at their places in front of the first pew on my left, and the women stand at their places in front of the first pew on my right. Similarly, they are seated there in those front pews for the reading of the Holy Scriptures and the preaching of the Gospel. Following the sermon, typically during a hymn at that point, the wedding party stands and comes together in the center (at the step into the chancel, or the sanctuary proper; though such things may differ depending on the architectural layout of the church). Henceforth, the bride and groom remain together throughout the remainder of the service, finally following the Cross in procession out of the church.
In the rite of holy matrimony, following the Invocation and the opening address, the bride and groom pledge their solemn intention to have and to hold each other so long as they both shall live. Thereafter, the bride may be given in marriage, or the parents of the bride and of the groom may give their consent and blessing. Depending on the circumstances, either option may be fine, although I rather like the latter. At the most recent wedding I officiated, not only the parents but the entire congregation was then also asked for its promise to encourage, support and pray for the couple in their married life. Perhaps the role of the parents would be somewhat less significant in the case of an older bride and groom, but in most circumstances the consent and blessing of the parents confess a God-pleasing transition from the Fourth Commandment to the Sixth Commandment, if one may express a change in emphasis that way. (Of course it is true that both Commandments always pertain to everyone at every age, but surely the nature of their application changes with marriage.) I’ve already mentioned the significance of the father giving the bride to her husband. There is also the man’s leaving of father and mother to be joined to his wife. And the congregation is present, not only as a witness, but to lend the support of its faith and love, its confession and prayers, to the man and the woman.
Following the pledges of intent by the couple and the blessing and consent of their parents, the bridal veil should appropriately be lifted by the groom. Most traditional brides do have veils of a sort, but, if she is going to have a veil, then it ought to veil her face until her father has given her and her betrothed has solemnly pledged to receive her in holy matrimony. If that sounds old-fashioned and patriarchal, so much the better. The husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of His Church; and this headship, let it clearly be stated, is one of care and protection, of self-sacrificing love and service. Where the solemn promise of such commitment and provision has been made, there and then may the father let go his daughter, and the man look upon his bride with the eyes of love. The veil is a sign, and the unveiling of the bride is a ceremony, indicative of godly modesty, of purity and chastity, which are frankly in too short supply and taken too lightly (if not regarded as passé).
There is also the matter of the wedding dress itself, and of the bridesmaid’s dresses. Surely we live in the freedom of the Gospel, but there is a need for proper decorum also in this respect. Fashions and styles are constantly changing, and the prevailing sensibilities of the day will help to determine what may be appropriate. Not everything considered fashionable or stylish is in good taste, however. On the one hand, the bride should be adorned as beautifully, elegantly, radiantly, and, one might even say, extravagantly as possible. She stands before the congregation as an icon of Christ’s holy Bride, the Church, and visually confesses the radiant beauty of His righteousness upon her. This is exactly akin to the white garments of Holy Baptism. Obviously, good stewardship ought to be exercised, and the point is certainly not one of ostentatiousness or presumptuous pride. Simplicity can also be quite beautiful, "less is more" and all of that. Faith in Christ, the fear of the Lord, a gentle and quiet spirit, these are the Christian woman’s inner beauty, which is true and lasting beyond all outward adornment. Yet, the bride stands not only for herself. She signifies the hidden reality of the Church as Christ Jesus truly beholds her in grace and love and mercy and forgiveness, without spot or wrinkle or blemish.
The Church is such a beautiful Bride because she is clothed and covered by the righteousness of Christ; that she would not be found unclothed, naked and ashamed, but dressed and adorned with Him. The man and his wife shall both be naked and unashamed in the marriage bed, but not in the public assembly of the church! There, Adam and Eve are covered by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, our Savior, whose nakedness upon the Cross has borne our shame and atoned for all our sins. Everything, again, is to confess Him, and point to Him, and proclaim His Gospel. Accordingly, when it comes to the bride and her bridesmaids, perhaps a simple consideration will suffice, in view of some fashion trends (and the advice that some new brides are evidently given by dress merchants): Buxom beauties in danger of bobbing out of their dresses do not help people think about Jesus!
The exchanging of rings is truly meet, right and salutary, and should be reverently acknowledged as having a profound significance. Even our largely cavalier society, for all its apparent disdain of holy marriage, nevertheless recognizes the meaning and importance of a wedding band. I like the older language that the LSB rite offers as an option for this ceremony, in which the rings are identified with the bodies, worldly goods and life of the bride and groom, who give themselves entirely to each other. No pre-nuptial agreements or divisions of property here!
I’m not a big fan of the popular "unity candle." I admit that my wife and I had one at our wedding, and I have allowed the use of such a candle at many of the weddings I’ve done in the past. But I don’t encourage it, and I’ve become less and less enamored with it over time. It’s not sinful, nor even wrong per se, but it always seems to me a bigger distraction than helpful contribution. If the wedding rite occurs in the Divine Service, then I certainly would not advise the use of a "unity candle."
I honestly don’t know what my colleagues may think or have to say about the traditional kiss, but I tend to be in favor of it. Of course, it could be overdone in a way that is sensational and inappropriate. But the Church is bidden to "kiss the Son," and in Christ righteousness and peace have kissed each other. For the man to kiss his wedded wife is, I warrant, a whole lot closer to the ancient Christian kiss of peace than the handshake of friendliness with which many congregations have been inflicted. Among the Eastern Orthodox, the kissing of icons is a reverent expression of faithful piety and love for Christ. It seems good to me that the bride and groom, as icons of Christ and His Church, should publicly embrace one another in the tenderness of peace and love and unity, as our heavenly Bridegroom so embraces us by grace through faith in His Gospel. The kiss confesses, more pointedly than any other aspect of the wedding, the union of man and wife, not only in heart and mind, but also in body. In my practice, it has come with the presentation of the bride and groom, following the Benediction. Then, as previously mentioned, they follow the Cross in procession out of the church (within their new vocation).
The particular ceremonies of a Lutheran wedding will serve and support all of these general purposes, while specifically confessing the divine significance of holy matrimony. Along with the basic rules of reverence and courtesy, it should be reiterated that everything is finally about Jesus. The Church finds her heart and center, her body and life in Him, who is her heavenly Bridegroom. Everything she does (in faith and love) proceeds from Him, returns to Him, confesses Him, points to Him, and resounds to the glory of His Name. That is no less true, but all the more so, in the case of a wedding celebration. Wherever the Holy Scriptures speak of marriage, from the beginning of the first creation to the consummation of all things in the New Creation, the Lord is speaking to us of Christ and His Church. The Christian bride and groom will surely desire that their wedding, as also their entire marriage, will confess and proclaim this christological significance, and that Christ Jesus Himself will be all and all. Whatever would contradict that, compete with that, distract or detract from that, finally has no place.
That is not to say that the celebration of holy matrimony has nothing to do with the particular bride and groom who find themselves before the Lord, in the presence of His people, to be united according to His Word and in His Holy Name. How absurd it would be to ignore the particularities of those two people who are there and thereby called by God to become a living and embodied icon of Christ and His Bride, the Church! It should not be understood as an either-or, but as a case of Christ manifesting Himself to and for this couple, and in them unto His entire Church and the world around them. Let us not shy away from the specificity of marriage, nor from the specificity of this man and this woman. Not only the propers and the preaching, but also the ceremonies of a Lutheran wedding will reflect all this.
It is certainly appropriate for the clergy and the "wedding party" to process into the church, and, as always, for the Cross of Christ to lead that procession. It is for the Cross that the congregation stands. In fact, it is strikingly significant for that visual icon of Christ the Crucified to lead the way, in view of the fact that He is the Husband who gives Himself up for His Church, in order to present her to Himself as a glorious Bride. For weddings, I have followed the Cross myself (if not carried the Cross), and have had the groom follow immediately after me; then the groomsmen escorting the bridesmaids, and finally the father of the bride escorting her to the front of the church. It does seem good to me for the groom to follow the cross and the presiding minister, as he shall walk in the way of Christ in love and service unto his wife. It also seems good to me for the father of the bride to bring her and present her to the man who will be her husband, as the Father once brought Eve to Adam and gave her to him. Such details are free, and the rubrics may call for something slightly different, but that is what has worked well for me in all of the weddings that I have done.
For the beginning of the liturgy, whether it be the Entrance Rite of the Divine Service or the Psalmody of the prayer offices, I have had the men stand at their places in front of the first pew on my left, and the women stand at their places in front of the first pew on my right. Similarly, they are seated there in those front pews for the reading of the Holy Scriptures and the preaching of the Gospel. Following the sermon, typically during a hymn at that point, the wedding party stands and comes together in the center (at the step into the chancel, or the sanctuary proper; though such things may differ depending on the architectural layout of the church). Henceforth, the bride and groom remain together throughout the remainder of the service, finally following the Cross in procession out of the church.
In the rite of holy matrimony, following the Invocation and the opening address, the bride and groom pledge their solemn intention to have and to hold each other so long as they both shall live. Thereafter, the bride may be given in marriage, or the parents of the bride and of the groom may give their consent and blessing. Depending on the circumstances, either option may be fine, although I rather like the latter. At the most recent wedding I officiated, not only the parents but the entire congregation was then also asked for its promise to encourage, support and pray for the couple in their married life. Perhaps the role of the parents would be somewhat less significant in the case of an older bride and groom, but in most circumstances the consent and blessing of the parents confess a God-pleasing transition from the Fourth Commandment to the Sixth Commandment, if one may express a change in emphasis that way. (Of course it is true that both Commandments always pertain to everyone at every age, but surely the nature of their application changes with marriage.) I’ve already mentioned the significance of the father giving the bride to her husband. There is also the man’s leaving of father and mother to be joined to his wife. And the congregation is present, not only as a witness, but to lend the support of its faith and love, its confession and prayers, to the man and the woman.
Following the pledges of intent by the couple and the blessing and consent of their parents, the bridal veil should appropriately be lifted by the groom. Most traditional brides do have veils of a sort, but, if she is going to have a veil, then it ought to veil her face until her father has given her and her betrothed has solemnly pledged to receive her in holy matrimony. If that sounds old-fashioned and patriarchal, so much the better. The husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of His Church; and this headship, let it clearly be stated, is one of care and protection, of self-sacrificing love and service. Where the solemn promise of such commitment and provision has been made, there and then may the father let go his daughter, and the man look upon his bride with the eyes of love. The veil is a sign, and the unveiling of the bride is a ceremony, indicative of godly modesty, of purity and chastity, which are frankly in too short supply and taken too lightly (if not regarded as passé).
There is also the matter of the wedding dress itself, and of the bridesmaid’s dresses. Surely we live in the freedom of the Gospel, but there is a need for proper decorum also in this respect. Fashions and styles are constantly changing, and the prevailing sensibilities of the day will help to determine what may be appropriate. Not everything considered fashionable or stylish is in good taste, however. On the one hand, the bride should be adorned as beautifully, elegantly, radiantly, and, one might even say, extravagantly as possible. She stands before the congregation as an icon of Christ’s holy Bride, the Church, and visually confesses the radiant beauty of His righteousness upon her. This is exactly akin to the white garments of Holy Baptism. Obviously, good stewardship ought to be exercised, and the point is certainly not one of ostentatiousness or presumptuous pride. Simplicity can also be quite beautiful, "less is more" and all of that. Faith in Christ, the fear of the Lord, a gentle and quiet spirit, these are the Christian woman’s inner beauty, which is true and lasting beyond all outward adornment. Yet, the bride stands not only for herself. She signifies the hidden reality of the Church as Christ Jesus truly beholds her in grace and love and mercy and forgiveness, without spot or wrinkle or blemish.
The Church is such a beautiful Bride because she is clothed and covered by the righteousness of Christ; that she would not be found unclothed, naked and ashamed, but dressed and adorned with Him. The man and his wife shall both be naked and unashamed in the marriage bed, but not in the public assembly of the church! There, Adam and Eve are covered by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, our Savior, whose nakedness upon the Cross has borne our shame and atoned for all our sins. Everything, again, is to confess Him, and point to Him, and proclaim His Gospel. Accordingly, when it comes to the bride and her bridesmaids, perhaps a simple consideration will suffice, in view of some fashion trends (and the advice that some new brides are evidently given by dress merchants): Buxom beauties in danger of bobbing out of their dresses do not help people think about Jesus!
The exchanging of rings is truly meet, right and salutary, and should be reverently acknowledged as having a profound significance. Even our largely cavalier society, for all its apparent disdain of holy marriage, nevertheless recognizes the meaning and importance of a wedding band. I like the older language that the LSB rite offers as an option for this ceremony, in which the rings are identified with the bodies, worldly goods and life of the bride and groom, who give themselves entirely to each other. No pre-nuptial agreements or divisions of property here!
I’m not a big fan of the popular "unity candle." I admit that my wife and I had one at our wedding, and I have allowed the use of such a candle at many of the weddings I’ve done in the past. But I don’t encourage it, and I’ve become less and less enamored with it over time. It’s not sinful, nor even wrong per se, but it always seems to me a bigger distraction than helpful contribution. If the wedding rite occurs in the Divine Service, then I certainly would not advise the use of a "unity candle."
I honestly don’t know what my colleagues may think or have to say about the traditional kiss, but I tend to be in favor of it. Of course, it could be overdone in a way that is sensational and inappropriate. But the Church is bidden to "kiss the Son," and in Christ righteousness and peace have kissed each other. For the man to kiss his wedded wife is, I warrant, a whole lot closer to the ancient Christian kiss of peace than the handshake of friendliness with which many congregations have been inflicted. Among the Eastern Orthodox, the kissing of icons is a reverent expression of faithful piety and love for Christ. It seems good to me that the bride and groom, as icons of Christ and His Church, should publicly embrace one another in the tenderness of peace and love and unity, as our heavenly Bridegroom so embraces us by grace through faith in His Gospel. The kiss confesses, more pointedly than any other aspect of the wedding, the union of man and wife, not only in heart and mind, but also in body. In my practice, it has come with the presentation of the bride and groom, following the Benediction. Then, as previously mentioned, they follow the Cross in procession out of the church (within their new vocation).
13 July 2007
For Love or Money?
One of the presenters at Zach's freshman orientation made the assertion, rather matter-of-factly, that everyone goes to college for the sake of making more money. To hear it put that way really stunned me, and it saddened me, too. Is the pursuit of money really what drives everything? Is this to be the goal of life? I often joke about that, myself, but I guess I would prefer ultimately not to believe it. Then again, it is written that the love of money is the root of all evils. That seems to be proving itself in the case of college students.
Evidently, a survey of high school seniors reported that such young people, on average, imagine that their first job out of college will pay something like $160,000 per year. Such expectations presumably contribute to extravagant spending habits among college students, who either don't know or don't care that the money they receive from loans will eventually have to be paid back. Going out to eat and various forms of entertainment account for a huge percentage of what the typical college student spends. In addition to credit cards (which amount to bad news), many of these students end up working as many as 20-25 hours per week, on top of their classes, in order to sustain their lifestyles. Making money in order to spend it does seem to be driving an awful lot of what happens. That's a shame.
I gather that the pursuit of riches can lead to a less than happy life after college, too, judging from some of the other comments. One presenter told the incoming freshman, emphatically, that their college years would be the best years of their lives. I leaned over and told Zach that his college years would be good ones, but nowhere near the best years of his life. Really, we ought to live each year, and each day, as though it were the best and last that we are given, in faith toward God and in fervent love toward one another. We have died and risen with Christ in Holy Baptism, and our real life, our true and eternal life, is safe and secure with God in heaven. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Chasing after money, and even managing to acquire lots of money, whether to horde or to spend, does not buy happiness; it sure doesn't buy peace or contentment. Whether much or little, whatever we have is a gift of God's grace to be used in faith and love. All things come and go, but the Word of the Lord abides forever.
I appreciated the advice of another presenter, who spoke about choosing a major and thinking about a future career. She was closer to the truth when she said that a lucrative career is fine, but if you don't enjoy what you're doing, it isn't going to make you happy or be very satisfying. My high school economics teacher taught us much the same thing, decades ago, when he made the point that a career is not chiefly about making money, but about one's place in the world and purpose in life. These are Law-driven evaluations, but they diagnose the problem, anyway. We find our true purpose and genuine satisfaction, our lasting peace and Sabbath rest, only in Christ. He is our priceless treasure, without whom heaven itself would be void and bare.
Evidently, a survey of high school seniors reported that such young people, on average, imagine that their first job out of college will pay something like $160,000 per year. Such expectations presumably contribute to extravagant spending habits among college students, who either don't know or don't care that the money they receive from loans will eventually have to be paid back. Going out to eat and various forms of entertainment account for a huge percentage of what the typical college student spends. In addition to credit cards (which amount to bad news), many of these students end up working as many as 20-25 hours per week, on top of their classes, in order to sustain their lifestyles. Making money in order to spend it does seem to be driving an awful lot of what happens. That's a shame.
I gather that the pursuit of riches can lead to a less than happy life after college, too, judging from some of the other comments. One presenter told the incoming freshman, emphatically, that their college years would be the best years of their lives. I leaned over and told Zach that his college years would be good ones, but nowhere near the best years of his life. Really, we ought to live each year, and each day, as though it were the best and last that we are given, in faith toward God and in fervent love toward one another. We have died and risen with Christ in Holy Baptism, and our real life, our true and eternal life, is safe and secure with God in heaven. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Chasing after money, and even managing to acquire lots of money, whether to horde or to spend, does not buy happiness; it sure doesn't buy peace or contentment. Whether much or little, whatever we have is a gift of God's grace to be used in faith and love. All things come and go, but the Word of the Lord abides forever.
I appreciated the advice of another presenter, who spoke about choosing a major and thinking about a future career. She was closer to the truth when she said that a lucrative career is fine, but if you don't enjoy what you're doing, it isn't going to make you happy or be very satisfying. My high school economics teacher taught us much the same thing, decades ago, when he made the point that a career is not chiefly about making money, but about one's place in the world and purpose in life. These are Law-driven evaluations, but they diagnose the problem, anyway. We find our true purpose and genuine satisfaction, our lasting peace and Sabbath rest, only in Christ. He is our priceless treasure, without whom heaven itself would be void and bare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)